Use a standard fast film, or rate a slower one faster?

This is perhaps an obvious question to many of you, but I've never

tried pushing a film before .... I want to do some HAND-HELD dusk

shots with my M7, and would like to know if I will get better

sharpness and less grain if I use a regular 3200 film, or if I use a

slower speed film which I rate at 3200. If it's the latter, how many

multiples can one push a slower film, ie, what would be the best

speed film that you would suggest pushing so that I can "pretend"

it's a 3200? Many thanks.

For 400 to 800 speed, I really like Delta400, it's a fine film for all

applications. Others are very happy with films like Tri-X and HP5.

For 1600 and 3200, I really like Delta3200. To me, Delta 3200

rated at EI 1600 is the sweet wpot for fast B&W. Has a rather

classic look, but good sharpness and surprisingly fine grain.

 

Good luck.

The ISO 3200 films are pretty much ISO 800 films that are designed to take well to underexposure and extended (AKA "push") development. Push processing increases the contrast of the negative or transparency. The ISo 3200 films, like Kodak TMZ3200 is designed with an extended contrast range to compensate for this.

The 3200 speed films on the market ARE pushed if you use them at 3200. Their true speed with "normal" development is probably in the 1000 to 1200 range. Go to the photo.net B&W - Processing board and there is a lot of information on this. ISO 400 films at 3200 ~ that's a stop and a half more than you can get out of Tri-X in Diafine. Just maybe you could coax 2000 out of Tri-X or HP5 Plus with water bath development. It's a slow process and you'd have to experiment on a few rolls. The latest incarnation of Tri-X might not be receptive to it. Tri-X and HP5 Plus both have MUCH finer grain than the two so called 3200 films. Are you sure that 1200 won't be enough? Tri-X in Diafine is simple and easy! The grain is pretty fine. Also remember that giving too much exposure to dusk pictures can make them look like they were shot in much brighter conditions.

I screwed up in my last post. The board tolook at is "B&W - Film".

For 800 I would uprate Delta/HP5/Trix-X, but faster than that I like Delta 3200 rated either at 1600 or 3200. The film has a superb look at 3200, but has piles of grain. Adds to the atmosphere. I agree with the above comments that it is better at 1600. I develop in Microphen. It is a fun film to use.

HP-5+ rated at 800 and developed in T-Max is so good that I use it as my norm for all-round shooting. If I know I will only be working outside in good light or in the studio with strobes I will go to Pan-X or Delta 100 at their normal ratings.

In the spirit of this topic, then, let me just throw out this quick question: what do people here like better, Tri-X rated and developed in Microphen (or Diafine) at EI 1600, TMZ 3200 or Ilford Delta 3200 rated and developed at 1600, or Fuji Neopan 1600 at 1600? Cheers-

IMHO, you cannot beat Tri-X in Diafine at 1250-1600.

May I extend the question here? Generally speaking, it is understood that faster films (1600,

3200...) shot at their nominal rating are grainier than slower ones (400...) Right? Now, if I pull a

3200 and shoot it at 1600, ie one stop slower, and have the film developped accordingly,

which is supposed to reduce the nominal grain, will the grain look like a one stop pushed 800 of

the same brand? Or will the pulling bring the grain down to the nominal 800 grain?

It's really a question of tonality, not grain. In principle: the 3200 film shot at (say)EI 1200 will not be underexposed and will show greater shadow detail and lower contrast. The 400 film shot at the same EI 1200 will be underexposed, and will have reduced shadow detail. The contrast will also be greater because of the increased development. Try it and see. Then choose what you like.

Think of it this way. Minimal grain size for a given film is pretty much set when the film is made. Yes, some developers dissolve a bit of it away, but over development makes it grow and clump. Everything else being equal a 400 speed film has smaller grain than an 800 speed film. 100 speed film is finer than either.

 

When T grain technology came along it was hailed as the answer to grain. Now Kodak comes out with a whole line of "new improved" films and tells us that the "new" Tri-X has finer grain than the new TMY.

Forty years ago we got to 3200 with Kodak Royal-X Pan. That was replaced with Kodak 2475 Recording Film (which I thought to be a bit slower). Both very grainy. That was the era that gave us Acufine and Diafine. In the ISO 800-1200 range you'll get much finer grain starting out with Tri-X. TMZ has BIG grain to start with. But in murky darkness getting any image at all can be more important than worrying about grain.

When I go all the way to 3200, I push Fuji Neopan 1600 1 stop. For the speed, the grain and tonality are incredible, though it may be a bit contrasty for some folks' taste.

As Ellis noted, there are no ISO 3200 films. There are a few ISO 800 - 1000 films that respond well to push processing.

 

You will generally have less grain pushing a slower speed film, but you will also have significantly less shadow detail. For example, Delta 3200 at EI 1600 has very rich shadow detail (the equal of 400 speed films shot at 400), and at 3200, it can still hold the detail in black tuxes and white wedding gowns. If you push a 400-speed film to 1600, shadow detail is going to be poor, and at 3200, it will be virtually nonexistent.